Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 354 posts

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#231

Post by theshrike79 »

madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this?

You do know that Google is a web advertising company first?

If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their bread and butter.

Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies, tell which sites track you etc. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot without a plan.

There is no situation where Google will actually care about privacy, since their whole business model exists on the fact that they know everything about their users so they can target ads better.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#232

Post by johnisgood »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #90
seaman1921 wrote: post #26

It is so annoying to see that HN and general media have collectively decided that Google and everything it does is evil, but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Google is not abusing your user data like you are made to think. If you talk to a Google engineer, you would realise the countlesss number of measures they take to safeguard user's data - human access is next to impossible. Only machines…

> but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Do me a favor: Grab an Android phone with all the Google crap still on it, factory reset it, and actually read the obnoxious ways in which Google asks you to give it permission to track you. "We want to improve your search results!!! Click yes!" The small print: and thereby enable us to log EVERYWHERE you walk, drive, commute ALL DAY LONG. And that examp…

And do not forget the fact that you cannot delete any of these apps, and IIRC Gboard (Google's keyboard) requires Internet access, does it not? In any case, I disabled all Google apps and replaced it with alternatives. I should just root my phone and delete all of it, but sadly I need "Courier Services" and whatnot. Google is everywhere, you cannot even get rid of it.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#233

Post by IanSanders »

presentation wrote: post #226
IanSanders wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "ok I'll look at any ad that pays me at least 50 cents" Personalised advertisement industry is inherently harmful. Remember, the end goal is to charge the user as much as they are willing to pay.

How is that inherently harmful? Doesn't charging a large sum for something offered by an ad mean, that the ad provided something of value to the user? My issue with personalized ads isn't that users end up spending money on what they offer; it's the potential for the collection of that pervasive data to negatively impact the user and broader society.

>How is that inherently harmful?

Aside from collected data being used for other purposes besides advertisement, when efficient, it allows charging the individual more than they "should" be paying. If an industry "knows" that your washing machine broke, it "knows" that you would be easier manipulated into paying a higher price (sorry for the simplification and the amount of quote marks).

>Doesn't charging a large sum for something offered by an ad mean, that the ad provided something of value to the user?

If a user was to be compensated, the payment for watching the ad is most definitely coming out from the product price in the end, so on the big scale there is no compensation.

>potential for the collection of that pervasive data to negatively impact the user and broader society.

Absolutely agree.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#235

Post by ComodoHacker »

kmeisthax wrote: post #196
devlopr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would see mydomain.com/adnetwork then.

The reason why subdomains work is that you can make the root domain go to your own site, while the subdomain goes to your ad provider. If you use a CNAME it's literally just a matter of publishing another DNS recod and you're done. Moving to a subdirectory requires setting up a reverse proxy on your existing infrastructure, and keeping it up to date every time your ad network switches domains. Hell, on a lot of platf…

>That's why the ad industry used third-party domains in the first place

Another reason is ad provider doesn't have to trust first party, if ads are served from their server.

I'm not sure which reason is more important.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#236

Post by freebuju »

esperent wrote: post #207
JohnTHaller wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current stable version of Firefox on Android works just fine with uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, etc.

> etc. No, pretty much just those. There are very few extensions available on new builds of mobile Firefox. I got excited when the blog team announced that the were more available on the nightly buil, but after jumping through loads of hoops I found out there's just a couple of new ones and most extensions are still unavailable.

You most likely found some community suggested collection add-ons list. You can install any of the Firefox add-ons on mobile by adding them to your own curated collection.

The real question though is will all of them work?

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#237

Post by deadmutex »

ma2rten wrote: post #224
smichel17 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add a third option: neither! Seriously, I've had 3rd party cookies disabled four years and almost nothing breaks. The last time I remember needing to enable them was some online homework system that came with a math textbook.

I feel like there are some misunderstandings in this thread. Let me summarize my understanding: Safari has effectively disabled third party cookies. Nothing broke. Chrome has announced that they will do the same in 2022. However, unlike Apple, Google doesn't want to cannibalize the ad industry so they decided to introduce this Privacy Sandbox which allows targeted advertising without sending a personal identifier to…

Thanks for the tl;dr. Should be top comment IMO, lol.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#238

Post by tadfisher »

dmix wrote: post #190
madrox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.

I don't want web advertising to go away. The issue here is excessively intrusive tracking, not the ads themselves. Otherwise how are Youtube creators, newspapers, Firefox, etc going to operate with out it? Companies adding multiple megabytes of JS tools is probably another issue entirely as they often involve a variety of crap like 2-3 ad publishers, content recommendation services (chum), 5 different analytics and a…

> Just like "defund the police" is a stupid self-alienating stance to stake, so is expecting web ads to end.

Don't go there, please. At the very least it reveals you don't understand what "defined the police" means, and at worst you're insulting those who are living in constant fear and daily trauma. There are better analogies to use.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#239

Post by onion2k »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #203
madrox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.

Nothing is free however. If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses, and that will lead to its quality deteriorating, or even more extreme content filters to appease advertisers and remain afloat.

If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses..

Why? Businesses ad spend budgets aren't going to be reduced simply because ads no longer track people. The same amount of money will go to advertisers. So long as ad companies can deliver a better return than other forms of advertising that competes for those budgets the online ad companies will be fine.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#240

Post by freebuju »

underslung wrote: post #205
tylerhou wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything below is my opinion, or information to the best of my personal knowledge. I don't speak for Google. That lawsuit alleges that Google was tracking people (with analytics) during incognito mode, which is different from opting out of ad personalization. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552967 for HN discussion on the topic. If you use Firefox, you can install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox…

fwiw I do not work at Google and I believe opting out of ad-tracking (via your Google account) is independent of general data analytics. The stronger fingerprinting technology becomes (whether browser and/or network based) the more irrelevant a Google account will be for PII tracking. [this is my opinion, take with grain of salt]

More like a pinch :D

Though I do agree with your logic. Google won't need your login info to profile you any more than Facebook does.

Your browser FP (such as hardware device info), IP address, frequent search terms (browsing habits) and distinct pattern will be sufficient enough to identify you without logging in. Metadata is everything in locking down targets.

Post reply on HN